Talk:Call center industry in the Philippines/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Subsections, not to mention the articles name, is incorrectly capitalized. Since subsections and Wikipedia articles are not works, they are to be capitalized as regular text, in this instance as common nouns. The article should therefore be located at Call center industry in the Philippines. Similarly, terms like business process outsourcing are not to be capitalized—only proper nouns are.
 * The first paragraph is a copyright violation, as it is copied verbatim from the source. (see below) It also does not introduce the article, but instead presents what the industry was.
 * Large amounts of the article is written as lists. These should be converted to prose.
 * The article needs a thorough copyedit.
 * The lead need a complete re-write, and should summarize the article better.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article is mostly lacking in-line citations.
 * None of the references are correctly formatted. For online sources, provide at least url, title, author and accessdate. If available or applicable, also date, publisher (if different from author) and language (if not English) should be provided. The easiest way is to use the cite web template.
 * References should be after punctuation. Only when it is ambiguous for the reader's ability to understand what is being referenced, should the in-line citations be in the middle of a sentence.
 * Reference 1 actually states this article as its source. Thus the article is sourcing from itself. Websites that use wikipedia as sources are not reliable.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I would have liked to see a history section (that includes part of the current other sections).
 * Trivia sections should be avoided. The one fact mentioned is untrivial enought that it can be moved elsewhere.
 * The article has a lot that is related to call centers in general. While a certain amount of overlap is perhaps needed, this article should focus on what is unique for the Philippenes.
 * The 'see also' section is too long, and should not contain terms in the main body. Terms like 'medical transcription' should not be in the 'see also' section, because the connection is not inherently logical.
 * In general, the article says very little. If general areas of call center activity are bypassed, there is very little left. For instance, what is under the section 'Common Call Center recruitment and training process' could be said about most industries in the world, not just the Philippines or the call center industry. Also, this section generalizes, and it would be natural that the 700+ companies differ slightly in their reqruitment process.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article has several weasel words and terms, such as "location of choice", "high literacy rate". Be more specific, and provide citations.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I have to fail the article. The main concerns are the lack of references, the need of a copyedit and the lack of depth. The article should be several times the current length. If you disagree with the outcome, you can renomiate the article. However, I would strongly discourage this without fixing all the above mentioned points. The best of luck with improving the article. Arsenikk (talk)  23:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I have to fail the article. The main concerns are the lack of references, the need of a copyedit and the lack of depth. The article should be several times the current length. If you disagree with the outcome, you can renomiate the article. However, I would strongly discourage this without fixing all the above mentioned points. The best of luck with improving the article. Arsenikk (talk)  23:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to fail the article. The main concerns are the lack of references, the need of a copyedit and the lack of depth. The article should be several times the current length. If you disagree with the outcome, you can renomiate the article. However, I would strongly discourage this without fixing all the above mentioned points. The best of luck with improving the article. Arsenikk (talk)  23:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)